DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed April 23, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. In particular, the reference listed under “Other Documents” has not been considered, because a copy of it has not been provided (Examiner notes that a 22-page reference was provided by Applicant, which appears to be the contents of a US Patent Application, but upon review of the contents of that document and the contents of the US Application 19/264,452 listed under “Other Documents” on the IDS, the subject matter does not match). All other references listed on the April 23, 2026 IDS have been considered, as indicated on the annotated IDS.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its first sentence has a phrase which can be implied (… “is described”, in line 2) and the abstract contains three instances of the legal term comprising/comprises. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically, claim 4 positively recites “fixing means for fixing said attachment device”, which is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the three-prong test is met.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fixing means in claim 5 (this is because claim 5 assigns sufficient structure to the fixing means in the form of “a threaded hole configured to house a screw”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9: “an foot” should recite “a foot”
Claim 1, line 13: “of the functional band” should be added after “the lower wall”
Claim 1, lines 13-14: “during release of the device” should be recited as “during the release of the attachment device from the protection helmet”
Claim 4, line 3: “an accessory” should recite “the accessory”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and claims 2-6 at least due to dependency from claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the plane defined by the central stem”, wherein “the plane” lacks clear antecedent basis. Further, in light of the Specification and Drawings, the central stem has several potential “planes”, since it is a three-dimensional structure, and it is indefinite as to which of the planes is “the plane”. Correction is required. Examiner notes that the same phrase is recited in dependent claim 3, which is likewise indefinite.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “wherein the central stem has, at its free end, [a] foot” wherein the term “its” is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “wherein the central stem has a free end that has a foot”.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “the external edge”, which lacks antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “wherein the lug has, on one of its sides, a surface” wherein the term “its” is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “wherein the lug has sides, wherein one of the sides of the lug has a surface”.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant recites “The attachment device according to claim 1, comprising, along its upper portion, fixing means” wherein the term “its” is indefinite. Correction is required. Examiner suggests “The attachment device according to claim 1, comprising, along the upper portion of the attachment device, fixing means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, as best as can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubnick (USPN 4,479,738).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kubnick discloses an attachment device (essentially, everything shown in Fig. 3 of Kubnick constitutes the overall attachment device) for attaching an accessory to a shell of a protective helmet, the shell comprising a shell body and a functional band around at least one front and/or rear part of the shell body, wherein the functional band comprises a central wall, an upper wall and a lower wall, wherein the functional band comprises an attachment seat formed by an opening in the upper wall and in the lower wall of the functional band (Examiner notes the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense; the attachment device of Kubnick is capable of performing the function recited within this intended use statement; see Figs. 1, 2 and 4; for further explanation, refer to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 below), wherein the attachment device comprises an upper portion (see annotated Fig. 3 below, everything above the dashed line forms an arbitrary upper portion of the overall attachment device; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)) from which a flat central stem (center finger #22 is a flat central stem; see Figs. 2, 5, 7, 9) and two lateral prongs (endmost fingers #21 and #23 are lateral prongs) inclined with respect to the plane defined by the central stem extend (as shown in Fig. 9), wherein the central stem has, at its free end, [a] foot (see annotated Fig. 7 below) extending in a direction perpendicular to the central stem (the foot is three-dimensional, so it extends in all directions, including directions that are perpendicular to the overall center finger #22) and configured to engage with the opening in the lower wall (the identified foot is at least capable of engaging with a hypothetical opening in a lower wall of a hypothetical helmet; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), wherein the attachment device further comprises a lug protruding downwards from the foot (see annotated Fig. 7 below) for disengaging the opening in the lower wall during release of the device (the identified lug is at least capable of disengaging from the hypothetical opening in the lower wall of the hypothetical helmet, during release therefrom; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kubnick discloses that the foot comprises a projecting portion (see annotated Fig. 7 above, which shows an arbitrary “projecting portion”, inasmuch as the projecting portion has been structurally defined in the claim) configured, when the foot engages with the opening in the lower wall, to abut against the external edge of the opening (the identified projecting portion is at least capable of abutting against the external edge of the hypothetical opening; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense).
Regarding claim 3, Kubnick discloses that the lug has, on one of its sides, a surface inclined with respect to the plane defined by the central stem (see Fig. 9, wherein the fingers #21-23 (including center stem #22, which has the lug at its bottom) all have an inclined surface on both front and rear sides thereof, relative to “the plane” (i.e. one of which is somewhat shown as perfectly vertical in Fig. 9, as compared to an inclined plane in the lug) defined by the central stem (Examiner notes that the central stem has several planes defined by it, since it is a three dimensional structure)).
Regarding claim 4, Kubnick discloses that the attachment device comprises, along its upper portion, fixing means (the knob #K (which belongs to the “upper portion” as explained above) has an opening to which a threaded shank portion #26d can threadably engage (Col. 4, Lines 3-7 and 41-42 of Kubnick)) for fixing said attachment device to an accessory to be attached to the functional band (the knob and shank threadably engage one another to affix a face shield #12 to the helmet; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense).
Regarding claim 5, Kubnick discloses that said fixing means comprise a threaded hole (as noted above, the knob has a threaded opening for receiving threaded shank) configured to house a screw for fixing said attachment device to said accessory (the threaded shank acts as a screw to be housed by the opening in the knob #K, as explained above; Examiner notes that the emphasized/italicized language is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense).
Regarding claim 6, Kubnick discloses a protective helmet (primary unit #11 is a helmet) comprising a shell comprising in turn a shell body (see Fig. 1) and a functional band (flange #13 is a functional band) around at least one front part and/or rear part of the shell body (flange #13 extends from the front “part” to reach at least a portion of a rear “part” of the shell body; Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein the functional band comprises a central wall (see Fig. 4; the reference numeral #16, representative of a passageway, is generally pointing to a central wall in the flange (i.e. functional band)), an upper wall (in Fig. 4, the backwards-J shaped feature has an upper wall, generally where #15a is pointing) and a lower wall (in Fig. 4, the backwards-J shaped feature has a lower wall, generally close to where #21a is pointing), wherein the functional band comprises an attachment seat formed by an opening in the upper wall and in the lower wall of the functional band (passageway #16 is an opening that defines an attachment seat, the opening having its top point at the aforementioned upper wall and its bottom point at the aforementioned lower wall), the protective helmet further comprising an attachment device according to claim 1 fixed to the functional band (as described in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 1 above; see Figs. 1 and 2 showing the attachment device fixed to the flange (i.e. functional band) of the helmet).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of attachment devices with three prongs, usable in helmets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights